Why is it OK.....

Originally posted by vivify
1) There's 400 years of documented racial discrimination from whites that continues to this day, in a nation dominated and run by whites. Alleging that one Mexican judge has similar bias is quite baseless by comparison.

2) The judge started presiding over the case in 2014, long before Trump entered the presidential race, and long before Trump made his pla ...[text shortened]... g a task force as federal prosecutor to do so.

So...that's why Trump's comments are not "OK".

1) So historically racism only comes from whites and all whites are racists

2) Why point out when the judge first started presiding? What does that have to do with anything?

3) He has fought to take down cartels? What has he done to prevent them from coming across the border I wonder.

Incidentally, I'm not even attempting to defend the comments of Trump. I'm merely pointing out the racial hypocrisy from the left.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I have no doubt that has already happened in the white supremacist zones in Montana and Idaho.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I'm not sure why you feel its ok to write things and attribute them to me. I actually stated the ethnicity of the decision maker does not matter. I simply noted that I don't see the Mexican judge any different than complaining that an all white jury cant bring justice.

Originally posted by quackquack
Isn't Trump far less popular with Mexicans (who the judge is) than the white population?
Of course that does not mean that Trump is entitled to a white judge just a fair one.
Similarly I'd argue that a defendant is entitled to a fair jury not one of a specific racial composition. In the end, the Mexican judge decided a case is not different than a wh ...[text shortened]... jury deciding a case and in both we should not worry about the ethnicity of the decision maker.

Ignoring the fact that all-white juries are significantly more likely to convict black defendants than mixed race juries doesn't make that fact go away. Your post fails to address that salient data. If and when white juries stop systemically acting in such a manner is when we can "stop worrying" about it. In the meantime, reasonable corrective measures are required.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Again, I'm not defending what Trump says, I hate him.

What I'm doing is showing the socially accepted hypocrisy of the left by them doing the exact same thing to whites time after time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ignoring the fact that all-white juries are significantly more likely to convict black defendants than mixed race juries doesn't make that fact go away. Your post fails to address that salient data. If and when white juries stop systemically acting in such a manner is when we can "stop worrying" about it. In the meantime, reasonable corrective measures are required.

What you fail to consider is that mixed juries may favor a defendant based upon their race, much like the OJ effect.

So you are essentially agreeing that it is OK to generalize about race and assume that they will rule accordingly, so long as it is a white jury. Anyone else should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by whodey
What you fail to consider is that mixed juries may favor a defendant based upon their race, much like the OJ effect.

So you are essentially agreeing that it is OK to generalize about race and assume that they will rule accordingly, so long as it is a white jury. Anyone else should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Pathetic.

The evidence is clear; that you want to ignore it because of your ideological preconceptions is just as clear. Your vague, unsupported claims are not equivalent to the mountain of evidence (of which the link I provided is just a sample) which supports the idea that all white juries are statistically more inclined to convict black defendants.

Originally posted by whodey
Again, I'm not defending what Trump says, I hate him.

What I'm doing is showing the socially accepted hypocrisy of the left by them doing the exact same thing to whites time after time.

There is no equivalence between a correct assertion that all-white juries are more statistically likely to convict black defendants than mixed race ones and an unsupported claim that a particular judge is biased against a certain individual because of his ethnic background. That you are too ideologically biased to accept that and see "hypocrisy" where none exists shows your extreme lack of reasoning skills, but little else.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There is no equivalence between a correct assertion that all-white juries are more statistically likely to convict black defendants than mixed race ones and an unsupported claim that a particular judge is biased against a certain individual because of his ethnic background. That you are too ideologically biased to accept that and see "hypocrisy" where none exists shows your extreme lack of reasoning skills, but little else.

So essentially what you are saying is that the white race has proven to be racist.

Originally posted by whodey
So essentially what you are saying is that the white race has proven to be racist.

Yeah that's it.🙄🙄 That's what you hear because that's what you want to hear.

Or what I'm saying is that there is abundant evidence to indicate that all-white juries in the US are statistically more likely to convict black defendants than mixed race ones.

By contrast, there isn't much evidence to support the idea that judges of Mexican ethnic heritage are biased against white billionaires.

Therefore, accepting the former while being extremely skeptical of the latter isn't "hypocrisy".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yeah that's it.🙄🙄 That's what you hear because that's what you want to hear.

Or what I'm saying is that there is abundant evidence to indicate that all-white juries in the US are statistically more likely to convict black defendants than mixed race ones.

By contrast, there isn't much evidence to support the idea that judges of Mexican ethnic her ...[text shortened]... Therefore, accepting the former while being extremely skeptical of the latter isn't "hypocrisy".

Well exactly how much evidence is there that Mexican judges rule against billionaires who want to build a border fence?

Essentially you are only feeding into the racist thinking of Trump and justifying it by indicating that race really does matter in a court of law, unless you wish us to believe that only whites are capable of racism.

Originally posted by whodey
Well exactly how much evidence is there that Mexican judges rule against billionaires who want to build a border fence?

Essentially you are only feeding into the racist thinking of Trump and justifying it by indicating that race really does matter in a court of law, unless you wish us to believe that only whites are capable of racism.

I wish people to believe what the evidence supports and not reject the evidence because it clashes with their pre-existing ideology.

That is expecting too much from you.

From what I have read of the Trump U case, the judge's rulings esp. the denial of summary judgment which is what Trump was primarily complaining about, was clearly legally correct. There are sufficient issues of facts to go before a jury; the judge has scheduled the trial AFTER the November election which seems quite favorable to Trump.

Originally posted by whodey
1) So historically racism only comes from whites and all whites are racists

2) Why point out when the judge first started presiding? What does that have to do with anything?

3) He has fought to take down cartels? What has he done to prevent them from coming across the border I wonder.

1) Of course, that's exactly what I'm saying.

2) Because the judge already had a negative view of Trump well before Trump established his views on Mexico and the wall.

3) What does "fought to take down cartels" mean in your language? Does it mean "help them cross the border?"